2009-08-01 Chicago Journals - Circ Doesn't Reduce STD Risks

[Joseph]

This is only going to get burried like the Wawer study, but here goes anyway...

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/600074

The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2009;200:370–378
© 2009 by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved.
0022-1899/2009/20003-0008$15.00
DOI: 10.1086/600074
MAJOR ARTICLE
Adult Male Circumcision Does Not Reduce the Risk of Incident Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or Trichomonas vaginalis Infection: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Trial in Kenya
Supriya D. Mehta,1
Stephen Moses,3,4,5
Kawango Agot,6
Corette Parker,2
Jeckoniah O. Ndinya‐Achola,7
Ian Maclean,3 and
Robert C. Bailey1

1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, Chicago, Illinois; 2RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; Departments of 3Medical Microbiology, 4Community Health Sciences, and 5Internal Medicine University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; and 6University of Nairobi, Illinois, and Manitoba Project, Kisumu, and 7Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

Background.We examined the effect of male circumcision on the acquisition of 3 nonulcerative sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

Methods.We evaluated the incidence of STI among men aged 18–24 years enrolled in a randomized trial of circumcision to prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in Kisumu, Kenya. The outcome was first incident nonulcerative STI during 2 years of follow‐up. STIs examined were laboratory‐detected Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Trichomonas vaginalis infection.

Results.There were 342 incident infections among 2655 men followed up. The incidences of infection due to N. gonorrhoeae, C. trachomatis, and T. vaginalis were 3.48, 4.55, and 1.32 cases per 100 person‐years, respectively. The combined incidence of N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis infection was 7.26 cases per 100 person‐years (95% confidence interval, 6.49–8.13 cases per 100 person‐years). The incidences of these STIs, individually or combined, did not differ by circumcision status as a time‐dependent variable or a fixed variable based on assignment. Risks for incident STIs in multivariate analysis included an STI at enrollment, multiple sex partners within <30 days, and sexual intercourse during menses in the previous 6 months; condom use was protective.

Conclusions.Circumcision of men in this population did not reduce their risk of acquiring these nonulcerative STIs. Improved STI control will require more‐effective STI management, including partner treatment and behavioral risk reduction counseling.

Received 16 December 2008; accepted 27 February 2009; electronically published 19 June 2009.

Reprints or correspondence: Dr. Mehta, 1603 W. Taylor St., M/C 923, Chicago, IL 60622 (supriyad@uic.edu).
Potential conflicts of interest: none reported.

Financial support: Family Health International, supported by the US Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (to R.C.B.); Division of AIDS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (AI50440); and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (HCT 44180; investigator award to S.M.).

[Nate67]

I went and looked at the article.
Check out the Authors:
Supriya D. Mehta, Stephen Moses, Kawango Agot, Corette Parker, Jeckoniah O. Ndinya‐Achola, Ian Maclean, and

Robert C. Bailey:eek:

Can this be? Is the good Dr. Bailey actually admitting that Circumcision is not the cure to all the ills of the world?

If anybody wants the PDF, that can not otherwise download it, let me know.

-Nate

[z726]

Can this be? Is the good Dr. Bailey actually admitting that Circumcision is not the cure to all the ills of the world?

Probably not. In these medical journal articles, the author list includes those whose previous work is quoted. The guys who wrote this one likely just referred to Bailey's earlier HIV study.

[Nate67]

Probably not. In these medical journal articles, the author list includes those whose previous work is quoted. The guys who wrote this one likely just referred to Bailey's earlier HIV study.

No, I don't think so. I have peer-reviewed publications of my own. I am a plant biotechnologist not a medical doctor, so I am not 100% sure, but I presume that authorship "works" the same way.

If they were simply referring to Bailey's previous work, he would be cited in the references. The fact that he is an author indicates that he was included in the study or at least reviewed the manuscript before it was submitted for publication. You can't include someone as an author without their knowledge and consent.

Can you imagine if the authors thought they were doing Bailey a favor (giving him a authorship on a manuscript) and did not inform him they were including him, then Bailey finds out after publication, he is on a paper that does not support routine circumcision? Now that is rather amusing, at least to me. I suppose it is possible.

Could it be that Bailey in his advanced age, is reconsidering his stubborn insistence to the "health benefits" of circumcision?

Yeah..I doubt that too. I suspect he only agrees that in this particular situation that there was no real protection, yet I am sure he would insist there is no harm, and all the benefits were not fully explored. I am sure he still advocates RIC. This might make him be accepted as "moderate" and not the extremist that he is, and therefore more credible to some. Perhaps that is his motivation.

Regardless, it seems this is a positive development which supports intactivism, regardless of Bailey's personal philosophy.

I do agree with Joseph, that this study will largely be ignored, and will not get the press and attention of the "circ prevents HIV" crap that creeps into the collective conscience of society and is then vomited back out for further consumption by the masses.

Oh well..baby steps....baby steps.....